by genesyx
I myself prefer having the negative score intact. Sure it makes it harder to count, but by having the -3 penalty instead of having a sudden bump in points from 3 to 4+ animals it just seems more "natural flowing". (a penalty for 3 or less animals, then subsequently BVP goes up 1 by 1 from 0,1,2,....)IMO it also gives the impression of the urgency of getting at least 4 of each animals by end game, as I find telling people you'll get a penalty for having too less animals is easier to explain than telling them the sudden point leap if you achieve 4+ animals as oppose to 0~3.
Redward wrote:
I also find this chart giving the false impression diminishing returns, as going from 3~4 animals give 4 pts, then for each additional animal count giving only 2 and sometimes 1 pt.
Not trying to criticize your graph and analysis, as you can easily determine your total animal points easily from that graph. However when it comes to scoring I prefer the slightly more complex (yet easy to explain the penalty) version that came with the game as (for me) it adds a slight tension when I count up my animals 1 step at a time :p